Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 427.104 (2026)

Prohibited practices

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

427.104427.104 Prohibited practices.

427.104(1)(1) In attempting to collect an alleged debt arising from a consumer credit transaction or other consumer transaction, including a transaction primarily for an agricultural purpose, where there is an agreement to defer payment, a debt collector may not:

427.104(1)(a)(a) Use or threaten force or violence to cause physical harm to the customer or the customer’s dependents or property;

427.104(1)(b)(b) Threaten criminal prosecution;

427.104(1)(c)(c) Disclose or threaten to disclose information adversely affecting the customer’s reputation for credit worthiness with knowledge or reason to know that the information is false;

427.104(1)(d)(d) Initiate or threaten to initiate communication with the customer’s employer prior to obtaining final judgment against the customer, except as permitted by statute including specifically s. 422.404, but this paragraph does not prohibit a debt collector from communicating with the customer’s employer solely to verify employment status or earnings or where an employer has an established debt counseling service or procedure;

427.104(1)(e)(e) Disclose or threaten to disclose to a person other than the customer or the customer’s spouse information affecting the customer’s reputation, whether or not for credit worthiness, with knowledge or reason to know that the other person does not have a legitimate business need for the information, but this paragraph does not prohibit the disclosure to another person of information permitted to be disclosed to that person by statute;

427.104(1)(f)(f) Disclose or threaten to disclose information concerning the existence of a debt known to be reasonably disputed by the customer without disclosing the fact that the customer disputes the debt;

427.104(1)(g)(g) Communicate with the customer or a person related to the customer with such frequency or at such unusual hours or in such a manner as can reasonably be expected to threaten or harass the customer;

427.104(1)(h)(h) Engage in other conduct which can reasonably be expected to threaten or harass the customer or a person related to the customer;

427.104(1)(i)(i) Use obscene or threatening language in communicating with the customer or a person related to the customer;

427.104(1)(j)(j) Claim, or attempt or threaten to enforce a right with knowledge or reason to know that the right does not exist;

427.104(1)(k)(k) Use a communication which simulates legal or judicial process or which gives the appearance of being authorized, issued or approved by a government, governmental agency or attorney-at-law when it is not;

427.104(1)(L)(L) Threaten action against the customer unless like action is taken in regular course or is intended with respect to the particular debt; or

427.104(1)(m)(m) Engage in conduct in violation of a rule adopted by the administrator after like conduct has been restrained or enjoined by a court in a civil action by the administrator against any person pursuant to the provisions on injunctions against false, misleading, deceptive or unconscionable agreements or conduct (ss. 426.109 and 426.110).

427.104(2)(2) If a debt collector is not otherwise in violation of sub. (1) (j) with respect to a consumer credit transaction with a debtor, it is not a violation of this section to send a billing statement or other notice of account to, or to collect the amount due on the account from, the spouse of that debtor, if notice to the debtor’s spouse is provided under s. 766.56.

427.104 HistoryHistory: 1971 c. 239; 1975 c. 407; 1983 a. 186; 1991 a. 316; 1997 a. 302.

427.104 AnnotationSixty-nine calls to a debtor over a 19-month period was not harassment. Associates Financial Services Co. of Wisconsin v. Hornik, 114 Wis. 2d 163, 336 N.W.2d 395 (Ct. App. 1983).

427.104 AnnotationA circuit court is competent to hear state consumer act claims based upon a creditor’s violation of federal bankruptcy debt collection prohibitions. Gonzales v. AM Community Credit Union, 150 Wis. 2d 773, 442 N.W.2d 536 (Ct. App. 1989).

427.104 AnnotationA replevin action is an attempt to collect a debt under this section. Kett v. Community Credit Plan, Inc., 228 Wis. 2d 1, 596 N.W.2d 786 (1999), 97-3620.

427.104 AnnotationSub. (1) (f) requires a bank that discloses a disputed debt to a credit bureau to disclose the disputed status of the debt each time that the debt is reported and not just the first time. Turner v. Gene Dencker Buick-Pontiac, Inc., 2001 WI App 28, 240 Wis. 2d 385, 623 N.W.2d 151, 99-3174.

427.104 AnnotationWhen the parties’ contract plainly required the defendant to obtain a replevin judgment before repossessing a car, and it was undisputed that the defendant did not obtain that judgment, the defendant violated sub. (1) (j) by filing a deficiency action because it knew or had reason to know that it had no right to the deficiency. Kirk v. Credit Acceptance Corp., 2013 WI App 32, 346 Wis. 2d 635, 829 N.W.2d 522, 10-2573.

427.104 AnnotationA creditor’s failure to provide a notice of right to cure default under ch. 425 does not constitute a sufficient basis for relief under this chapter. Security Finance v. Kirsch, 2019 WI 42, 386 Wis. 2d 388, 926 N.W.2d 167, 17-1408.

427.104 AnnotationIn this case, the residential lease included an agreement to defer payment for the purposes of sub. (1) because the lease created a tenancy for a period of 12 months during which the tenant was required to pay monthly rent, even if the tenant vacated the premises before the lease ended. The landlord acted as a “debt collector,” as defined in s. 427.103 (3), and violated sub. (1) (j) when the landlord served an eviction notice on the tenant during a declared eviction moratorium. Koble Investments v. Marquardt, 2024 WI App 26, 412 Wis. 2d 1, 7 N.W.3d 915, 22-0182.

427.104 AnnotationThe requirement found in 15 USC 1692e that an attorney have “meaningful involvement” in an action cannot be read into sub. (1) (k). Plaza Services LLC v. Burton, 2025 WI App 51, 418 Wis. 2d 123, 25 N.W.3d 556, 24-1129.

427.104 AnnotationPolice agencies and district attorneys are not prohibited by sub. (1) (b) from sending letters threatening criminal prosecution to persons who have issued worthless checks. 63 Atty. Gen. 340.

427.104 AnnotationTo state a claim under either the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act or the Wisconsin Consumer Act, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the debt in question arises out of a transaction incurred for personal, family, or household purposes. When a plaintiff maintains that the underlying debt was not the plaintiff’s, the plaintiff can nonetheless claim protection by showing that the debt collector treated the plaintiff as a consumer allegedly owing a consumer debt. However, a plaintiff proceeding under this theory still must offer evidence to establish that the debt was a consumer debt: in other words, that the debt was incurred for personal, family, or household purposes. Burton v. Kohn Law Firm, S.C., 934 F.3d 572 (2019).

427.104 AnnotationThe defendant violated sub. (1) (j) when it attempted to collect debts under a false name. Hartman v. Meridian Financial Services, Inc., 191 F. Supp. 2d 1031 (2002).

427.104 AnnotationServing a garnishment form on the wrong person cannot reasonably be construed as a violation of sub. (1) (j). Whitehead v. Discover Bank, 221 F. Supp. 3d 1055 (2016).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 81 cases (25 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Sec. Fin. v. Brian Kirsch, 926 N.W.2d 167 (Wis. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sec. Fin. v. Brian Kirsch, 926 N.W.2d 167 (Wis. 2019). · cites it 199× “3 ¶12 Kirsch argues that he is entitled to relief under Wis. Stat. § 427.104 because Security filed the lawsuit against him 3 We will not reach this new argument regarding liability for an independent Wis.”

Kirk v. Credit Acceptance Corp., 2013 WI App 32 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 21× “Therefore, according to the allegations in the complaint, Credit Acceptance violated Wis. Stat. § 427.104 (1)(j) when it filed the deficiency action because § 427.”

Kett v. Cmty. Credit Plan, Inc., 596 N.W.2d 786 (Wis. 1999). · cites it 22× “(II) Did Community Credit engage in prohibited practices in violation of Wis. Stat. § 427.104 (1)(h) and (j)? In other words, did Community Credit engage in conduct that could reasonably be expected to threaten or harass the customers or persons related to the customers or…”

Gable v. Universal Acceptance Corp., 338 F. Supp. 3d 943 (E.D. Wis. 2018). · cites it 12× “Summary judgment will also be denied as to the state law claims for conversion and violations of Section 427.104, and as to Gable's claim of illegal nonjudicial repossession, but granted as to Castner's claim for illegal nonjudicial repossession, and both plaintiffs' claims for…”

Brunton v. Nuvell Credit Corp., 2010 WI 50 (Wis. 2010). · cites it 8× “¶ 4 On December 16, 2005, Brunton filed suit against Nuvell in Dane County Circuit Court, alleging that Nuvell violated the Wisconsin Consumer Act by engaging in debt collection practices prohibited by Wis. Stat. § 427.104 . It is undisputed that this action arose out of a…”

Hartman v. Meridian Fin. Servs., Inc., 191 F. Supp. 2d 1031 (W.D. Wis. 2002). · cites it 8× “§ 1692 ; the Wisconsin Consumer Act, Wis.Stat. § 427.104(1); and the North Carolina Debt Collection Statute, N.”

Bahena v. Jefferson Capital Sys., LLC, 363 F. Supp. 3d 914 (W.D. Wis. 2019). · cites it 9× “The second claim relies on the same alleged conduct but arises under Wis. Stat. § 427.104 (1)(j), which prohibits debt collectors from claiming, attempting, or threatening to enforce a right with knowledge or reason to know that the right does not exist.”

Timothy Parent v. Home Depot U.S.A., 694 F.3d 919 (7th Cir. 2012). · cites it 3× “Among the claims remaining against Home Depot were violations of the following sections of the Wisconsin Consumer Act: Wis. Stat. § 427.104 (1)© which states, “[i]n attempting to collect an alleged debt arising from a consumer credit transaction or another consumer transaction .”

Beal v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., 956 F. Supp. 2d 962 (W.D. Wis. 2013). · cites it 8× “Relevant to this case, Wis. Stat. § 427.104 (1)(j) prohibits debt collectors from “elaim[ing], or attempting] or threatening] to enforce a right with knowledge or reason to know that the right does not exist.”

Strohbehn v. Access Grp. Inc., 292 F. Supp. 3d 819 (E.D. Wis. 2017). · cites it 12× “Count Two invokes Wis. Stat. § 427.104 (1)(h) of the WCA, which prohibits harassing conduct in the collection of a consumer debt.”

Kett v. Cmty. Credit Plan, Inc., 586 N.W.2d 68 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 11× “Community Credit's first response on this issue is that it was not attempting to collect a debt when it repossessed the collateral, and thus is not a "debt collector" governed by § 427.104, Stats, (listing prohibited practices in debt collection).”

Dorr v. Sacred Heart Hosp., 597 N.W.2d 462 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 5× “; (2) unfair debt collection practice contrary to § 427.104, Stats.; (3) breach of contract; (4) racketeering contrary to §§ 946.”

Show all 81 citing cases →

— Wis. Stat. § 427.104(1) — 14 cases

Sec. Fin. v. Brian Kirsch, 926 N.W.2d 167 (Wis. 2019). “3 ¶12 Kirsch argues that he is entitled to relief under Wis. Stat. § 427.104 because Security filed the lawsuit against him 3 We will not reach this new argument regarding liability for an independent Wis.”

Hartman v. Meridian Fin. Servs., Inc., 191 F. Supp. 2d 1031 (W.D. Wis. 2002). “§ 1692 ; the Wisconsin Consumer Act, Wis.Stat. § 427.104(1); and the North Carolina Debt Collection Statute, N.”

Assocs. Fin. Servs. Co. v. Hornik, 336 N.W.2d 395 (Wis. Ct. App. 1983).

Patzka v. Viterbo Coll., 917 F. Supp. 654 (W.D. Wis. 1996).

Beal v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., 956 F. Supp. 2d 962 (W.D. Wis. 2013). “Relevant to this case, Wis. Stat. § 427.104 (1)(j) prohibits debt collectors from “elaim[ing], or attempting] or threatening] to enforce a right with knowledge or reason to know that the right does not exist.”

— Wis. Stat. § 427.104(1)(L) — 1 case

Slomanski v. All. Collection Agencies Inc (E.D. Wis. 2020).

— Wis. Stat. § 427.104(1)(a) — 1 case

Flowers, Angela v. Kia Motor Fin. (W.D. Wis. 2023).

— Wis. Stat. § 427.104(1)(e) — 1 case

Summit Credit Union v. David L. Mancl (Wis. Ct. App. 2019).

— Wis. Stat. § 427.104(1)(f) — 1 case

Dorr v. Sacred Heart Hosp., 597 N.W.2d 462 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “; (2) unfair debt collection practice contrary to § 427.104, Stats.; (3) breach of contract; (4) racketeering contrary to §§ 946.”

— Wis. Stat. § 427.104(1)(g) — 11 cases

Gable v. Universal Acceptance Corp., 338 F. Supp. 3d 943 (E.D. Wis. 2018). “Summary judgment will also be denied as to the state law claims for conversion and violations of Section 427.104, and as to Gable's claim of illegal nonjudicial repossession, but granted as to Castner's claim for illegal nonjudicial repossession, and both plaintiffs' claims for…”

Creditbox.com, LLC v. Antjuan Weathers, 2023 WI App 37 (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).

Turner v. Gene Dencker Buick-Pontiac, Inc., 2001 WI App 28 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000).

Landmark Credit Union v. Ralph W. Streuly (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).

— Wis. Stat. § 427.104(1)(h) — 12 cases

Kett v. Cmty. Credit Plan, Inc., 596 N.W.2d 786 (Wis. 1999). “(II) Did Community Credit engage in prohibited practices in violation of Wis. Stat. § 427.104 (1)(h) and (j)? In other words, did Community Credit engage in conduct that could reasonably be expected to threaten or harass the customers or persons related to the customers or…”

Strohbehn v. Access Grp. Inc., 292 F. Supp. 3d 819 (E.D. Wis. 2017). “Count Two invokes Wis. Stat. § 427.104 (1)(h) of the WCA, which prohibits harassing conduct in the collection of a consumer debt.”

Desjurdin Lacey v. Credit Acceptance Co. (Wis. Ct. App. 2026).

Wendy Treuthardt v. Connexus Credit Union (Wis. Ct. App. 2026).

— Wis. Stat. § 427.104(1)(j) — 27 cases

Bahena v. Jefferson Capital Sys., LLC, 363 F. Supp. 3d 914 (W.D. Wis. 2019). “The second claim relies on the same alleged conduct but arises under Wis. Stat. § 427.104 (1)(j), which prohibits debt collectors from claiming, attempting, or threatening to enforce a right with knowledge or reason to know that the right does not exist.”

VanHuss v. Kohn Law Firm S.C., 127 F. Supp. 3d 980 (W.D. Wis. 2015).

Hartman v. Meridian Fin. Servs., Inc., 191 F. Supp. 2d 1031 (W.D. Wis. 2002). “§ 1692 ; the Wisconsin Consumer Act, Wis.Stat. § 427.104(1); and the North Carolina Debt Collection Statute, N.”

— Wis. Stat. § 427.104(1)(k) — 5 cases

Plaza Servs. LLC v. Kimberly Burton (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).

Jason Johnson v. Prohealth Care (Wis. Ct. App. 2026).

BCG Equities, LLC v. Kimberly Burton (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).

DNF Assocs., LLC v. Jeanette Wittmann (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).

Lako, Carson v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs. (W.D. Wis. 2021).

— Wis. Stat. § 427.104(g) — 2 cases

Landmark Credit Union v. Ralph W. Streuly (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).

— Wis. Stat. § 427.104(h) — 1 case

Desjurdin Lacey v. Credit Acceptance Co. (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).

— Wis. Stat. § 427.104(l)(c) — 2 cases

Stein v. Illinois State Assistance Comm'n, 535 N.W.2d 101 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995).

Eichman v. Mann Bracken, LLC, 689 F. Supp. 2d 1094 (W.D. Wis. 2010).

— Wis. Stat. § 427.104(l)(d) — 1 case

Nelson v. Santander Consum. USA, Inc., 931 F. Supp. 2d 919 (W.D. Wis. 2013).

— Wis. Stat. § 427.104(l)(f) — 2 cases

Turner v. Gene Dencker Buick-Pontiac, Inc., 2001 WI App 28 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000).

— Wis. Stat. § 427.104(l)(h) — 1 case

Kett v. Cmty. Credit Plan, Inc., 586 N.W.2d 68 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998). “Community Credit's first response on this issue is that it was not attempting to collect a debt when it repossessed the collateral, and thus is not a "debt collector" governed by § 427.104, Stats, (listing prohibited practices in debt collection).”

— Wis. Stat. § 427.104(l)(j) — 9 cases

Kirk v. Credit Acceptance Corp., 2013 WI App 32 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013). “Therefore, according to the allegations in the complaint, Credit Acceptance violated Wis. Stat. § 427.104 (1)(j) when it filed the deficiency action because § 427.”

Hartman v. Meridian Fin. Servs., Inc., 191 F. Supp. 2d 1031 (W.D. Wis. 2002). “§ 1692 ; the Wisconsin Consumer Act, Wis.Stat. § 427.104(1); and the North Carolina Debt Collection Statute, N.”

VanHuss v. Kohn Law Firm S.C., 127 F. Supp. 3d 980 (W.D. Wis. 2015).

River Bank of DeSoto v. Fisher, 556 N.W.2d 324 (Wis. 1996).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.